Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kairam Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs Ambati Rambabu on 14 November, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2242 of 2022
Kairam Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o Venkateswararao,
aged about 49 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o D.No.1-120/2,
Sakurru (v), Amalapuram Mandal, E.G. District.
... Petitioner
Versus
Ambati Rambabu, S/o Manga Raju, aged about 56 years,
Hindu, Business, R/o D.No.4-66, Penugonda Veedhi, Vemagiri,
Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District.
... Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Pappu Srinivasa Rao
Counsel for respondent : ---
ORDER:
Defendant in the suit filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order, dated 25.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.360 of 2021 in O.S.No.66 of 2021 on the file of learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.
2. Respondent, being the plaintiff, filed O.S.No.66 of 2021 to declare registered gift deed, dated 03.07.2017 obtained by the defendant, by fraud, coercion undue influence and mis- representation, as null and void and unenforceable under law; consequently to order cancellation of the gift deed, dated 2 03.01.2017 and communicate the same to the Sub-Registrar, Amalapuram; to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men and supporters from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land, etc.
3. In the plaint, it was contended inter alia that originally the suit schedule property belongs to Kairam Dhanalakshmi; that she purchased the same under registered sale deed, dated 10.02.1992 from Pulavarthi Kondala Rao; that she executed a registered gift deed, dated 27.11.2000 in favour of her daughter, Ambati Nagamani, wife of the plaintiff reserving life time interest and vested remainder to the daughter; that said K.Dhanalakshmi fell sick; that to meet medical needs and family needs, K. Dhanalakshmi and her daughter sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed, dated 28.02.2009 and delivered possession of the same; that K. Dhanalakshmi died on 14.03.2017; that as on the date of death, she was unconscious due to her ill health and developed memory loss; that taking advantage of her health condition, defendant took his mother to the Registrar office and obtained a registered gift settlement deed, dated 3 03.01.2017 in his favour by playing fraud, coercion and with mis-representation; that defendant also managed the revenue authorities and got her name updated in revenue records; that plaintiff came to know about the fraud played by the defendant and placed the matter before elders and also before Tahsildar, Amalapuram; that defendant promised to cancel the document, but did not do so; that on 08.11.2019, defendant gave notarized affidavit to the Tahsildar, Amalapuram by accepting the mistake committed by him and reported no objection to mutate the plaintiff's name in ROR; that basing on notarized affidavit, the revenue authorities updated the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records and pattedar passbooks and title deeds were issued; that defendant is not coming forward to cancel the registered gift deed, dated 03.01.2017; that defendant is making efforts to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff; that plaintiff got issued legal notice, dated 10.02.2021, but the same was returned with an endorsement 'addressee not claimed'. Hence, the suit is filed for the reliefs stated supra.
4. Petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.360 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 94 and 151 of CPC to 4 reject the plaint in O.S.No.66 of 2021, on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action and also on the ground of limitation.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that gift deed was executed in favour of the petitioner/defendant on 03.01.2017; that sale deed, dated 28.02.2009 is fabricated one; that the period of limitation for declaration as per Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act is three years and that would expire by 04.01.2020. Hence, the suit is liable to be rejected at the threshold on the grounds of cause of action and limitation.
6. Respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the application. Respondent/plaintiff reiterated the contentions of the plaint and contended that petitioner/defendant gave sworn statement before Deputy Tahsildar on 25.12.2019 and the said statement was filed along with the plaint as document No.6; that the defendant gave notarized affidavit on 08.11.2019 admitting his mistakes and confirmed the sale deed, dated 28.02.2009; that the defendant reported no objection to mutate the name of the respondent/plaintiff in the revenue records; that the cause of action starts from 5 08.11.2019 on the date when notarized affidavit was given and on 25.12.2019, on which date, defendant gave sworn statement before the Tahsildar and the same cannot be thrown away; that plaintiff got issued legal notice on 10.02.2021; that the petition is filed with a malafide intention to drag on the matter. Hence, prayed the trial Court to dismiss the petition.
7. The trial Court, by order, dated 25.02.2022, dismissed the petition. Against the said order, the present revision is filed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the document under challenge is dated 03.01.2017. He submits that going by the prayer, the period of limitation for declaration as per Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act is for three years and hence the suit has to be filed by 04.01.2020. Since the suit was filed in the year, 2021, it is clearly barred by limitation. Hence, the suit is liable to be rejected. He therefore, prays to set aside the order passed in I.A.
9. The point that arises for consideration is: 6
Whether plaint filed by the plaintiff is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC?
10. The main contention of the defendant is that suit is barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act. According to the defendant, the document is dated 03.01.2017 and the suit being for declaration, the time prescribed is three years and the suit is to be filed by 03/04.01.2020. Whereas the suit is filed in the year, 2021 and hence, the suit is barred by limitation.
11. In the plaint, the cause of action is mentioned as 08.11.2019, the date when the defendant gave notarized affidavit, and on 05.12.2019 the date on which sworn statement was given before the Tahsildar reporting no objection to mutate the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that the phrase 'cause of action' is not defined in Civil Procedure Code, 1908, but it is of vide importance. It has different meanings in different contexts i.e. when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or accrual of right to suit. Generally, it is described as bundle of facts, which if proved 7 or admitted, entitle the plaintiff for the relief prayed for. It is also settled law that cause of action consists of a bundle of facts which give cause to enforce the legal enquiry to redress in a Court of Law. A bundle of facts, when taken with the law are applicable to them, gives right to the effected party to claim relief against the opponent.
13. In Black's Law Dictionary, cause of action is stated as the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim. The phrase comprises every fact, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment.
14. In Halsbury's Laws of England, it has been stated as follows:
"Cause of action' has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. Cause of action' has also been taken to mean that a particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject- matter of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action."8
15. Cause of action means the cause of action for which the suit is brought, cause of action is cause of action which gives an occasion and forms the foundation of the suit.
16. In Swamy Atmananda & Ors vs Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam & Ors.1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded."
17. Order VII Rule 11(A) of CPC mandates that plaint can be rejected if no cause of action is disclosed. The purpose of conferment of such powers under Order VII R 11 CPC is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the courts. The power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action is, however, drastic one and hence the conditions 1 2005 (10) SCC 51 9 enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered. The Court must scrutinize the averments in the plaint as to whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or not.
18. In Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd. vs. M.V. Sea Success I & Ors.2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
139. "Whether plaint discloses cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact, but whether it does or does not must be found out from the reading of the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in entirety a decree would be passed."
19. In Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Hede And Company3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
..... It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form which has to be looked into. the plaint has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of 2 2004 (9) SCC 512 3 2007 (5)SCC 614 10 words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, Court cannot embark upon enquiry whether allegations are true in fact.
20. In the case on hand, a perusal of the plaint would indicate that cause of action for the suit arose on the date of execution of notarized affidavit by the defendant i.e. 08.11.2019 and also on the date when sworn statement was given before the revenue authorities i.e. on 05.12.2019. In view of the clear recital in the plaint, it is too early to record a finding that suit is barred by limitation. Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
21. The trial Court on a consideration of all the aspects, dismissed the application and there is no illegality in the order impugned, which warrants interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this revision is liable to be dismissed.
22. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made by the trial Court as well as by this Court are only in connection with the order but does not have any bearing while adjudicating the suit. No costs.
11
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
__________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date : 14.11.2022 ikn 12 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2242 of 2022 Date: 14.11.2022 ikn